Share This Page

Pollution
Legal Definition:

The European Union Water Framework Directive, at §2(33) defines pollution as:

"... the direct or indirect introduction, as a result of human activity, of substances or heat into the water or land which may be harmful to human health or the quality of aquatic ecosystems or terrestrial ecosystems directly depending on aquatic ecosystems, which result in damage to material property, or which impair or interfere with amenities and other legitimate uses of the environment."

The Environmental Management Act of British Columbia defines pollution as:

"... the presence in the environment of substances or contaminants that substantially alter or impair the usefulness of the environment."

Pollution is defined in all but name in this sample from Ontario's Environmental Protection Act, §14:

"... a person shall not discharge a contaminant or cause or permit the discharge of a contaminant into the natural environment, if the discharge causes or may cause an adverse effect."

"... a substance that, if added to any waters, would degrade or alter or form part of a process of degradation or alteration of the quality of the waters to an extent that is detrimental to their use by humans or by an animal or a plant that is useful to humans; and any water that contains a substance in such a quantity or concentration, or that has been so treated, processed or changed, by heat or other means, from a natural state, that it would, if added to any waters, degrade or alter or form part of a process of degradation or alteration of the quality of the waters to an extent that is detrimental to their use by humans or by an animal or a plant that is useful to humans."

Historically, before the state's foray into the prohibition of acts or omissions which harm the environment through criminal or regulatory law, the only avenue to control pollution through the law was through the civil action and tort of nuisance.

LAWimage

Duhaime Lawisms

One of the first tests of a discriminating advocate is to select the question, or questions, that he will present orally. Legal contentions, like currency, depreciate through over-issue. The mind of an appellate judge is habitually receptive to the suggestion that a lower court committed an error. But receptiveness declines as the number of assigned errors increases. Multiplicity hints at lack of confidence in any one. Experience on the bench convinces me that multiplying assignments of error will dilute and weaken a good case and will not save a bad one.
Justice Robert Jackson, Advocacy Before the United States Supreme Court, 25 Temple L. Q. 115 (1951)

Expand Navigation

Unless otherwise noted, this article was written by Lloyd Duhaime, Barrister, Solicitor, Attorney and Lawyer (and Notary Public!). It is not intended to be legal advice and you would be foolhardy to rely on it in respect to any specific situation you or an acquaintance may be facing. In addition, the law changes rapidly and sometimes with little notice so from time to time, an article may not be up to date. Therefore, this is merely legal information designed to educate the reader. If you have a real situation, this information will serve as a good springboard to get legal advice from a lawyer.